Fabre, Jr. vs.

Court of Appeals

259 SCRA 426, G.R. No. 111127 July 26, 1996

J.Mendoza, Pangilinan

FACTS:

Petitioners Engracio Fabre, Jr. and his wife were owners of a 1982 a minibus. Which they used
principally as a bus service for school children which they operated in Manila. The couple had a driver,
Porfirio J. Cabil.

On November 2, 1984 private respondent Word for the World Christian Fellowship, Inc. (WWCF)
arranged with petitioners for the transportation of 33 members of its Young Adults Ministry from Manila
to La Union and back. At 11:30 that night, he road was slippery because it was raining, causing the bus,
which was running at the speed of 50 kilometers per hour, to skid to the left road shoulder. The bus
came to rest off the road. Causing inuries to several passengers among which is Amyline Antonio who,
brought this case in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila.

The RTC ruled the defendants acted negligently which ultimately resulted to the accident
subject of this case.

The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s finding that petitioner Cabil failed to exercise
due care and precaution in the operation of his vehicle and that the Fabres were themselves
presumptively negligent.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cabil and the Fabres shall be held liable.

RULING:

Yes. The finding that Cabil drove his bus negligently, while his employer, the Fabres, who owned the bus,
failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their
employee is fully supported by the evidence on record.

The established facts that it was raining and the road was slippery, that it was dark, that he drove his bus
at 50 kilometers an hour when even on a good day the normal speed was only 20 kilometers an hour,
and that he was unfamiliar with the terrain, show that Cabil was grossly negligent and should be held
liable for the injuries suffered by private respondent Amyline Antonio, which in turn, pursuant to Arts.
2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, gave rise to the presumption that his employers, the Fabres, were
themselves negligent in the selection and supervision of their employee.

This case actually involves a contract of carriage. Petitioners, the Fabres, did not have to be
engaged in the business of public transportation for the provisions of the Civil Code on common carriers
to apply to them.Thus, the Fabres were bound to exercise “extraordinary diligence” for the safe
transportation of the passengers to their destination. This duty of care is not excused by proof that they
exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of their employee.

Accordingly, the CA’s decision is affirmed.